User reviews

Did Henry Hearst rape and kill two young girls? That's the question occupying the whole of Under Suspicion.

For nearly the entirety of its running time, the film is executed brilliantly. There is no action: it keeps the audience's attention through its intelligence, brilliant construction and the reliably excellent performances of Freeman and Hackman. We are not given definitive evidence, and many strange and suspicious things crop up that we yearn to find out about.

This could well have been one of the greatest mystery films I've seen... Until the ending. The ending leaves the audience without an explanation - and not in a good way that lets the audience ponder. It's an ending that leaves you shouting at the screen for an answer.

Overall, I'd recommend this film because it will keep you entertained and on the edge of your seat for more than an hour and a half. Just prepare yourself for an ending that will leave you wholly unsatisfied and rather annoyed.

If the thought of Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman acting opposite each other for basically the entirety of a movie inside an interrogation room doesn't excite you, then perhaps you should check your pulse. The acting in 'Under Suspicion' is worth the price of admission alone. It has plenty more to offer as well (despite some missteps along the way), however that is certainly the number one selling point this movie has.

There was a strange case here where the movie was a different type of movie to what I thought it was, but I didn't realise that until the final five minutes of the film. I won't say any more to avoid spoilers, however if you've seen it you likely know what I mean by that. I liked the mystery element the movie had going for it. I enjoyed playing along to see if I could work out what was happening. I could not, but it was still a fun ride.

For a movie with very little in the way of action, it still moves along at a brisk pace. Some well written dialogue and how well it is delivered helps in big part on this front. It didn't turn out to be the movie I wanted it to be, but it was still a fun journey along the way, and it's hard to be mad at that. 7/10.

This was a well produced and directed film starring two great veteran actors who both did an outstanding performance. Gene Hackman,(Henry Hearst),"The Replacements" 2000, was a very successful lawyer and well admired citizen of Puerto Rico along with his charming wife, Monica Bellucci,(Chantel Hearst),"Sheitan",'06. However, there was a very strange and dark side to their marriage and a long hallway and closed doors provided a very strange relationship for his couple. Morgan Freeman,(Captain Victor Beneget),"Edison",'05 is the chief of police and while he is investigating a homicide, he starts to question Henry Hearst and it is from this point in the film when all kinds of situations change and some of these very dark secrets come to light. Great acting and a great film, enjoy.

To tell you the truth, I didn't expect anything out of this movie. I watched it only because top name actors, so my surprise is big in here. We've got all: money, power, love and murders. And a very good movie also. This is not brilliant movie, but it is very watchable. Let me tell you why.

Stephen Hopkins directed "Under Suspicion" with very low budget, cause Hackman and Freeman were payed little and they are also executive producers. That means that this movie is theirs. They wanted to act in their own way and Hopkins couldn't do nothing about it. It turned out that that is great. Gene Hackman adds another stunning performance in his long career and Morgan Freeman follows him. Hackman had harder role so it is normal that he will be remembered in a context of this movie. Hackman plays a lawyer Henry Hearst, who is called to come to the police station to clear up a few loose ends in his witness report of a murder of young girl. Captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) is asking Henry all sorts of the questions, along with detective Felix Owens (Thomas Jane). That interview is said to be very short cause Henry has to make his speech on a found raising party. There his young wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) waits for him, just like the creme of San Juan's society.

As the movie goes on we found out lots of things about Henry Hearst. About his marriage with young and beautiful Chantal, about their problems and about his job. Henry becomes first suspect for murder and raping of two girls because of his little lies in his testimony. Benezet and Owens thinks he is the murderer and they are not alone in that. Chantal also suspects and that's what hurts Henry the most. Their relationship is shown on all levels and that's why characters of Freeman and hostile Jane suffers. But I liked that cause Hackman grab the opportunity to shine. Maybe his role in here could remind you on "Absolute Power", where Hackman plays similar role. But that is his brilliance. This character is so much different then that one, cause he didn't want to repeat himself. I also liked twist at the ending and all the scenes where Hackman or others are telling the story (Freeman always enters in their story, right at the sight). That was great, the atmosphere of interrogation room is good and the whole movie is very underrated. So I advise you to take a look on this movie; at least for Gene Hackman's performance.

In Puerto Rico, wealthy lawyer Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is married to beautiful Chantal (Monica Bellucci). Police detectives Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) and Felix Owens (Thomas Jane) investigate Henry for the rape and murder of a young girl. There is no direct evidence but Henry's story starts to fall apart revealing marital problems and personal sexual accusations.

The material may not be worthy and the directing style is poor. This is a four-handed play with four great actors. There is good possibilities but ultimately, the story is unsatisfying. This deserves more cinematic style. It may be compelling for completists but for everybody else, these actors have been in better.

A film with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in the two main roles is a dream come true for anyone who loves the art of acting, and their performances here (especially Hackman's, who after all does have the more showy part) are stunning. Stephen Hopkins' direction is hip, inventive and unstagy (though it must be said that his "a person can physically visit someone else's flashbacks" trick had already been done three years earlier, in "The Ugly"), the dialogue is sharp, and the story is compelling. So what's wrong with this picture? You guessed it...the ending! Simply put, the ending is baffling and unbelievable, no matter how you try to "explain" it. This film closely resembles the 1994 French thriller "A Pure Formality", and the irony is that, although that was a much worse film overall, it had a genuine surprise at the end, while "Under Suspicion" has the kind of "surprise" that makes the whole film come off as one big red herring. (**1/2)

Like SE7EN there is weird (albeit appropriate) music. Like SE7EN there is a jumpy, ADD-inflected title sequence. Like SE7EN this film is dark and dreary, a vision of an ill-lit and illicit milieu, raising far more questions than it answers. And Morgan Freeman is playing yet another world-weary detective, swamped by serial killings. There is even a young, hot-headed cop involved, although Thomas Jane (Detective Owens) is certainly no Brad Pitt. He was so grating in his part that I kept wishing he would get off the screen so the two leads could get at it.

And so they do. If in their last appearance together in UNFORGIVEN Hackman's character was tormenting Freeman's, then it is somehow fitting that here it is the latter's Capt. Victor Benezet who interrogates, berates, persecutes and ultimately breaks down the resistance of Hackman's Henry Hearst, an attorney who verily has a fool for a client. Capt. Benezet may position himself as the 'good' cop in the 'good cop/bad cop' scenarios he sets up with Detective Owens, and later, Detective Castillo (Pablo Cunqueiro); but he is ever questioning, ever probing, ever seeking in his interrogations the heart of this dark matter. He is even insinuated into his witnesses' recollections, through a cool cinematographic trick appearing and asking questions in situ in the midst of the film's flashbacks.

In spite of interruptions from underlings, superiors, and ultimately Hearst's spouse Chantal (Monica Bellucci in a tight, controlled performance) , over the course of the film one by one the lies and half-truths are stripped away, leaving Hearst with only his moral turpitude and his pitifully sparse self-justifications intact. It is only another interruption from one of Benezet's people that jerks us away from the sleazy, soul-shorn sight. Yet the revelation that follows twists and tears, sending our belief in this story and its implications into a dizzying, perhaps fatal spin.

In the ending sequence Chantal and Henry Hearst walk towards each other, but somehow do not connect. They end up sitting apart. In a way that relates to the way UNDER SUSPICION acts upon its viewers. Sorry, no neat, happy ending here. Not even a coherent one.

Only Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman could save this movie. The acting was great. Sorry I just couldn't get into the story, may be because it never left the police station and it was so slow, and the end was WHAT?

Most of this dialogue-intensive film takes place in an office in a Puerto Rican Police Department with a top detective (Freeman) grilling a wealthy attorney (Hackman) about the rape/murders of young girls. Featuring outstanding performances by both principals and technical and artistic excellence, the film's story unfolds piecemeal as it scrutinizes the Hackman character with painful deliberation while holding out the "whodunnit" carrot until the very end. More mature audiences with an appetite for this type of film are likely to find "Under Suspicion" a spellbinding tour de force by Hackman.

The movie is almost entirely based on the verbal exchange between the two outstanding lead actors: Freeman and Hackman. Freeman plays an investigation officer, Victor who has invited wealthy tax attorney Henry (Hackman) for clearing up some doubts about his testimony about two brutal murders, in which he is also a suspect. Thanks to the dramatic screenplay and director Hopkins's interesting style of showing flashbacks, the movie builds the tension right from the beginning. The story also explores the complex relationship between Henry and his attractive young wife Chantal, played nicely by Monica Bellucci.

To tell the truth, the whole interrogation procedure is made just magnificently enjoyable by the writer and performance of the actors. There's no point in comparison, but it must be said that Hackman's got the more complex and versatile role and he explored every bit of it with extreme passion. Apart from the two, same can be said about Bellucci. Some may complain that she should have expressed more emotion, I don't think so. The character herself is cold. And she captures that nicely. Thomas Jane played the 'young bad cop' role rather two-dimensionally. His character could be an interesting side point for the film but it doesn't seem so with him. Another question of mine: Why is the film set in Puerto Rico? None of the lead characters are from there. The story doesn't feature the country exclusively, so why?

But all these speculations and remarks fail when you end the movie like that. Yes, we understand why it was necessary. But it could have been shown more slowly, the truth could get the time to grow. In this case, the ending is utterly average and seemed like the filmmakers were suddenly in a rush to end the film. And that ruined everything the film was building upon so far.

In short:

I enjoyed the body of this movie. The plot was interesting, though slightly riddled with clichés, the characters were well developed, and the acting was great. The problem I had with UNDER SUSPICION was the unexplained ending.

Without spoiling the movie, I can safely say that the ending (if I interpreted it right, and I wasn't alone) is impossible based on the facts the movie gives you. The chances that this story could end the way it did plausibly are one in a million.

Too bad, I was really looking forward to the conclusion of this otherwise good renter.

'Under Suspicion,' a remake of the French film 'Garde a Vue,' is as compelling and engrossing a psychological thriller as I've seen in years. The drama is wonderfully tense and taut, and, best of all, the suspense holds out until near the very end of the film, lingering on afterward for hours in the viewer's mind.

Gene Hackman plays Henry Hearst, a successful attorney in San Juan, Puerto Rico who lives an apparently blissful life of luxury--he's got money, respect, a gorgeous house on the coast, and, most of all, a stunningly beautiful young trophy wife, Chantal (Monica Belluci, the voluptuous heir-apparent to Sophia Loren, in one of her first US roles).

On the eve of the feast of St. Sebastian, during which Hearst is set to deliver an address at a fundraiser for hurricane relief, he is called in to the police department by his longtime acquaintance Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) for additional questioning surrounding the death of a young girl. It seems that earlier that day, Hearst discovered the girl's body while jogging. It doesn't take long to discover that Hearst is a suspect, particularly when he is repeatedly threatened and insulted by the tactless Owens (Thomas Jane), a loose-cannon junior detective hot to make his first big bust. As the interrogation progresses--interspersed with stylish flashbacks combing memory and real-time--it becomes apparent that the case is far more complicated than it first appeared. It seems that the imminently respectable Henry Hearst has a fetish for young girls and a secret life involving internet pornography and prostitutes. Simultaneously revealed is Captain Benezet's longstanding jealousy of Hearst, whom he has watched gain wealth and prestige while Benezet has lost his wife to divorce and struggled to get by. As the intense intellectual combat continues, truth becomes more and more murky, to the point that the characters are not even sure of their own motives or actions.

This movie really stuck with me. Without giving anything away, let me say that the film will force you to consider the complexity of truth and memory and the degree to which psychological trauma and coercion can influence what we know about ourselves. Hackman and Freeman are superb, and it's a pleasure to watch them stretching their skills and chewing up the excellent dialogue as their characters confront each other. Thomas Jane gives one of his better performances as the hot-tempered Owens, and Monica Belluci gives a subtle and convincing performance while simultaneously being so unbelievably gorgeous that you can't take your eyes off of her. The direction by Stephen Hopkins is superb--creepy and stylish, the cinemetography makes maximum use of San Juan's many settings.

For some reason this one really flew below the radar when it was released. I highly recommend it as an excellent, memorable suspense thriller with meaning and substance.

I watched it because Freeman and Hackman were both in it. They did not disappoint. I didn't like the interrogation too much because I kept thinking why would a predominate attorney allow himself to be questioned like that. Certainly a real attorney would know his rights against self incrimination. It was the twist at the very end that re-framed the whole film and took it into a totally different direction I was not expecting. Then it made sense why Hackman allowed himself to be interrogated. Funny how the last few minutes of the film changed my opinion about the film and made me like it.

Ignore the grumbling about camera work, inexplicable location, Thomas Jane, and some peculiar directorial choices. See this movie for Hackman - I'm hard pressed to think of a more fully realized performance on film. He's just extraordinary.

This is a tremendous crime drama starring two top notch actors. Police Captain Benezet(Morgan Freeman)is investigating the brutal rape/murder of two young girls. The key suspect is high dollar, high profile attorney Henry Hearst(Gene Hackman). Thomas Jane plays the investigative detective and the drop dead gorgeous Monica Bellucci plays the lawyers wife. Interesting subplot explains the cause of the terrible situation at hand. Hackman and Freeman dominate the screen and also serve as the movie's executive producers.

If Stephen Hopkin's Under Suspicion were a meal I was served at a restaurant, I would throw it against the wall, flip the table, walk promptly back to the kitchen and knock the chef out cold. It's a hollow, pointless piece, like digging into a pie that's put before you only to find that under that layer of crust there's no filling, only air. The premise is promising: wealthy businessman Gene Hackman who has political ties is grilled out of the blue by longtime friend and police detective Morgan Freeman and his partner Thomas Jane, regarding the murder of a thirteen year ago old girl in the slums of San Juan. Hackman is a successful, assured alpha socialite, and these type of men always have some type of close guarded secret which comes to light. Freeman is a dogged working man who probes him until it almost seems personal rather than routine. Sounds terrific, right? You would think. The acting is of course fine, as these guys couldn't miss a beat if they tried, but the way the story is set up just rips the viewer off blind. These two thespians soar spectacularly, but their duel is structured around purposefully unreliable flashbacks, beating around the bush and oodles of red herrings that treat the audience like sixth graders watching a low rent magician at a birthday party. Hackman has a pretty trophy wife (Monica Belluci, underused) and a host of personal demons that he projects onto Freeman's simple blue collar rhetoric like a defence mechanism. None of these narrative fireworks can save it though, especially when an ending rolls around that is the very definition of a letdown, through and through. In an attempt to explore the forces that drive a man to the edge of admitting guilt whether he is responsible or not, the filmmakers miss the boat on providing a focused treatise that takes itself seriously with these potentially fascinating themes, instead settling on an overcooked, ultimately vacant that could have been so much more.

A film staring such great actors as Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, as well as the gorgeous Monica Belluci cannot be too bad. This is true for 'Under suspicion', the film is a 7/10 crime story, and the reason it misses to be more than that is the dubious directing and the twist at the end which unexpected as it may be leaves too many of the things having happened in the film largely unexplained.

Most of the action happens in the confines of a police station in Puerto Rico. It's carnival night out there, and the rich lawyer played by Gene Hackman is invited to answer some questions related to the body of a murdered teenage girl he had discovered the day before. The supposed ten minutes of non-formal witness declaration turn into a night long interrogation, in which many hidden secrets are being revealed between Hackman's character and the lower class policeman played by Freeman.

The two act wonderful, and the director could have let the movie fall completely on the two's shoulders. However, he did not have the courage to do it, and brought some innovations to help him, probably being afraid that the film will look too TV-like, or low budget. Some of them work reasonably (bringing Freeman's character on the scene of Hackman's flashbacks), other just add unnecessary filling, or do look as taken from the TV low budget repertoire (like the interrogation rooms scenes). The end comes abruptly and it does not explain at all the well acted evolution of Hackman from full self-confidence to complete social and psychological break-down.

The film is certainly worth a rental, but it is mostly for the pleasure of seeing again these two great actors.

Like its French inspiration, "Garde a Vue," Stephen Hopkins' film attempts to follow the tack of a psychological thriller but fails. It might have taken the path of a pure who-dunnit except that it is far too slow, caught up within its self imposed venue and contains entirely too much trivial talk.

I'll mention, for purposes to be addressed later, that the he film is an adaptation of the English novel "Brainwash," by John Wainwright, but unlike every novel's predisposition, this film makes no attempt to 'set up' the characters so the audience might witness their methodical exposure. Freeman and Hackman are intermittently engrossing during the very long 101 minutes it takes to reach the end - and it is ever the ending the writer has in mind. The rest of the story is a setup for the ending, so, if the story isn't spun out adroitly, the ending becomes pointless and you've wasted 2 hours and seven bucks.

Hackman and Freeman certainly have the chops to work in a more tightly wound presentation, but their characters need more meat on their bones so the audience even cares that one or the other's flesh is being stripped away in front of our eyes. We're never given the opportunity to meet these protagonists, form any opinions or understand either characters essential facade, so, in the end we just don't care what happens to either of them.

I am tempted, after watching this film, to go read the book. Like the optimistic child who dives into a mound of horse manure declaring "there must be a pony in here somewhere," I'm tempted to believe that this mound of bs must have once been a good yarn.